W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > March 2008

[widgets] Minutes from 6 March 2008 Widgets Voice Conf

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 08:18:29 -0500
Message-Id: <5B32DB6B-CB85-4770-90BF-78FD88568BDF@nokia.com>
To: public-appformats@w3.org

All - The minutes from the WAF WG's March 6 VoiceConf on Widgets are  
available at the following and copied below:


WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please  
send  them to the public-appformats mail list before March 11;  
otherwise the minutes will be considered approved.

Regards, Art Barstow


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                       WAF WG's Widgets Voice Conf

06 Mar 2008


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-appformats/ 

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2008/03/06-waf-irc


           Art, Marcos, Claudio, Ben_(BW), Benoit_(BS), Arve




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Agenda Review
          2. [6]Charter Update
          3. [7]Publication Moratorium for 1H08
          4. [8]f2f Meeting
          5. [9]Widgets Spec
          6. [10]Level 1 and Level 2
      * [11]Summary of Action Items

    Date: 6 March 2008

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <benW> Marcos, we're in the process of doing so at the moment

Agenda Review

    AB: any changes?

    MC: I was hoping Arve would participate but I'm OK with the agenda

    AB: I'll follow up with Arve to determine his status
    ... important to have active participation from Opera

Charter Update

    <arve> sorry, a bit late

    <arve> will call in in a minute

    <marcos_> cool

    AB: I talked to Mike Smith earlier this week and he said the charter
    is still being reviewed by the Team
    ... it seems unlikely the "mega charter" will prevail
    ... and more likely that at least two WGs will be be proposed
    ... and the AC4CSR spec may be in a separate WG just for that spec

Publication Moratorium for 1H08

    <anne> for real?

    <anne> wow

    <anne> that's silly

    <marcos_> it's called the Anne Working Group

    AB: the upcoming AC meeting and WWW2008 in April is cause for a
    ... April 15 is the deadline for publication requests

    <anne> seems easier to move it away from the W3c again then though,
    given all the overhead

    AB: I will be making a WAF/Widgets preso at WWW2008
    ... It would be great to have some new pubs out before the conf

    MC: we can try to publish all 3 widgets doc on that date

    AB: that would be fantastic

    BS: are your slides ready?

    AB: not yet

    BS: would be good for our internal presentation

    AB: understand

    <scribe> ACTION: submit the slides to the WG before presenting them
    at WWW2008 [recorded in

    <trackbot-ng> Sorry, couldn't find user - submit

    <scribe> ACTION: Barstow submit the slides to the WG before
    presenting them at WWW2008 [recorded in

    <trackbot-ng> Created ACTION-173 - Submit the slides to the WG
    before presenting them at WWW2008 [on Arthur Barstow - due

    <marcos_> Widget presentation:

      [14] http://www.slideshare.net/mcaceres/widgets-125319

f2f Meeting

    AB: Guido told me yesterday he needs one more day to try to find
    funding to host the meeting in Dublin
    ... I will give him another 24 hours

    ABe: I
    ... I'm ok with either

    AB: Claudio, June 3-5 in Turin is OK?

    Claudio: yes

Widgets Spec

    AB: issues: [15]http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/products/5
    ... I've been thinking about a Level 1 and Level 2 split of the spec

      [15] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/waf/products/5

    ABe: I agree to some extent
    ... for example Bernardo will not be able to contribute to the
    PKCS#7 discussion
    ... I think we need to leave some stuff off the table for L1

    MC: I think we've essentially agreed on Dig Signatures
    ... but we still have a few issues e.g. how much of XPath and Cannon
    to implement

    AB: proposal to close Issue #12 with a resolution that we will use
    XML Signature
    ... any objections?


    RESOLUTION: we will use XML Signature and close issue #12

Level 1 and Level 2

    MC: I agree as well
    ... I've already mades some spec simplifications just within the
    last week
    ... e.g. folder stuff

    CV: can you assign a timeframe for L1 and L2?
    ... e.g. when would a L2 spec be ready for impl?
    ... I don't think the market would wait too long

    MC: if you can help Edit Claudio that would help
    ... us to make progress
    ... we need inputs for most if not all of the red blocks
    ... our goal for L1 is October Last Call

    CV: and then start thinking about L2 in October?

    MC: you could start L2 now
    ... we could publish it when its ready e.g. technically sound, etc.

    <marcos_> L1: packaging format (zip), Config document, Processing
    model, base API, base events, digital sigs

    <marcos_> Processing model = XML Processing and how to process the
    package (files, folders)

    BW: I agree in principle to concentrate on the basics so I support
    the L1 and L2 split

    <benoit> BS: the question is really to decide if an L2 finalized can
    be added to the spec

    MC: I think yes
    ... if the items are ready, we could move them into L2

    CV: I understand the concerns Marcos is raising i.e. who's going to
    actually do the work
    ... we are particularly interested in the cross-widget messaging

    MC: we need an input for that
    ... as Nokia did with their digital signature input

    CV: OK, I'll think about it

    MC: I consider section 4 and 5 essentially done

    AB: we could rename the spec back to Widget Packaging Spec

    ABe: I'm in favor of something like Widget Packaging and Signature
    ... I don't think the cross-widgets messaging stuff should be in the
    spec at all since that functionality is part of HTML5
    ... and update is specified separately
    ... rather than thinking about L1 and L2 should be thinking in terms
    of extensions

    MC: I would like this to be more modular as well; could even move
    the APIs to a separate spec

    CV: I'm not an HTML5 expert but I'm not sure if the Widgets
    cross-messaging requirements are fully covered by what is in HTML5

    ABe: HTML5 probably satisfies the requirements for Widgets

    CV: I just wanted to know if our Widgets Reqs are covered by HTML5

    MC: I recommend reviewing the HTML5 model to see it covers the
    requirements you are thinking about
    ... postMessage

    CV: we have been looking at the Open Ajax model
    ... they are using a pub/sub model
    ... and it seems like a good starting point

    MC: please do some analysis and let us know what you learned

    AB: to summarize, there is support for focusing on core
    ... this could mean three separate docs:
    ... 1. Zip, config, Procssing model
    ... 2. basic APIs and events
    ... 3. Signature
    ... we could then add other specs as needed
    ... is this what we want to do?

    BS: this is more docs. Is this OK with you Marcos?

    MC: I would Arve to take the APIs and Events

    ABe: that will be difficult for me to meet by the April 15 deadline

    MC: I can take the signauture part and ask TLR for some help

    AB: I can help of the signature part too
    ... regarding doc #2, for April 15 we could just cut-and-paste what
    we have now
    ... is splitting the doc into these 3 parts doable by April 15?

    MC: yes

    <arve> Looking at section 7, we have mostly complete text

    AB: proposals to split the current doc into three parts as described
    ... any objections?


    <arve> no

    RESOLUTION: the Widgets 1.0 spec will be split into three separate

    <marcos_> :)

    AB: anything else for today?
    ... next week will start with section 4.1

    <claudio> quit

    AB: meeting adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Barstow submit the slides to the WG before presenting
    them at WWW2008 [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: submit the slides to the WG before presenting them at
    WWW2008 [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
Received on Thursday, 6 March 2008 13:19:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:56:22 UTC